R v Thornton

Case [2019] NSWDC 56

District Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Thornton [2019] NSWDC 56
Hearing dates: 12 February 2019
Date of orders: 15 March 2019
Decision date: 15 March 2019
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Hatzistergos DCJ
Decision:

The Offender is sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 3 years and 8 months.

Catchwords: SENTENCING – Dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm – two victims – assessment of moral culpability – number of people put at risk – length of the journey during which others were exposed to risk - prior traffic offences – remorse established – whether media scrutiny amounted to extra-curial punishment that could be taken into account
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 52A(3)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) ss 3A, 5, 7, 21A, 23, 24, 26, 28, 44, 53A, 68, 69
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment (Sentencing Options) Act 2018 (NSW)
Road Transport Act 2013 (NSW) s 205(2)
Cases Cited: Black v R [2010] NSWCCA 321
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194
Duncan v R [2012] NSWCCA 78
Harrigan v R [2005] NSWCCA 449
Kerr v R [2016] NSWCCA 218
Mansweto v R [2018] NSWCCA 232
Nashed v R [2010] NSWCCA 282
Panetta v R [2016] NSWCCA 85
Primmer v R [2015] NSWCCA 155
Ryan v the Queen (2001) 206 CLR 267
R v AB [2011] NSWCCA 229
R v Ellis (1986) 6 NSWLR 603
R v Greaves [2014] NSWCCA 194
R v Janceski [2005] NSWCCA 288
R v Koosmen [2004] NSWCCA 359
R v Manok [2017] NSWCCA 232
R v Ngyuen [2008] NSWCCA 113
R v Palu (2002) 134 A Crim R 174
R v Pullen [2018] NSWCCA 264
R v Takai [2004] NSWCCA 392
R v Whyte (2002) 55 NSWLR 252
R v Woodland [2007] NSWCCA 29
Silvestri v R [2016] NSWCCA 245
Stayard v R [2013] NSWCCA 134
WW v R [2012] NSWCCA 165
Texts Cited: N/A
Category:Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Jakob Thornton (Offender)
Representation:

Ms A. Hughes (Solicitor Advocate)
Mr J.J Klarica (Counsel)

  Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP)
Greg Willis Criminal Defence Lawyers
File Number(s): 2018/00053258
Publication restriction: N/A

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

Facts giving rise to the Offences (s 52A(3)(c) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) - Dangerous Driving Occasioning Grievous Bodily Harm x 2)

  1. On Friday 16 February 2018 just after 8:00pm, Police were setting up stationary roadside breath testing operation (RBT) on the southbound lanes at Campbelltown Road approximately 300 metres south of the Rose Payten Drive intersection. The two southbound lanes were separate by two single broken white lines and there was a grass medium strip that separated the two south bound lanes from the two north bound lanes.

  2. An exit from the Hume Highway leads onto Campbelltown Road, and the southbound lanes on Campbelltown Road leading up to the RBT have a downhill grade and a slight right hand bend. The area is a 60km/h zone.

  3. That night, traffic conditions were described as very light, the roadway…

Continue reading R v Thornton

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Thornton [2019] NSWDC 56
Case
[2019] NSWDC 56
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Thornton, the respondent faced sentencing following an incident of dangerous driving that resulted in grievous bodily harm to two victims. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The respondent had driven dangerously over a significant distance, placing numerous other road users at risk, and had a history of traffic offences. The court had to determine the appropriate sentence, considering the moral culpability of the respondent, the extent of the risk posed, the length of the journey during which others were exposed to danger, the respondent's prior criminal record, and the remorse shown.

The court examined the severity of the respondent's actions, the number of individuals endangered, and the duration of the dangerous driving. Additionally, the court considered the respondent's previous traffic violations and the extent of their remorse. The media scrutiny faced by the respondent was also discussed, with the court determining that it did not constitute an extra-curial punishment that could be taken into account in sentencing. The court found that the respondent's actions demonstrated a significant degree of moral culpability and that the sentence needed to reflect the gravity of the offence and the need for general and specific deterrence.

After considering all the factors, the court sentenced the respondent to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 3 years and 8 months. The court balanced the need for punishment with the respondent's remorse and other mitigating factors. The sentence aims to reflect the seriousness of the offence, deter the respondent and others from engaging in similar conduct, and provide some measure of justice to the victims.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Offender is sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 3 years and 8 months.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.